Pedro Domingos (born 1965) is a Professor Emeritus of computer science and engineering at the University of Washington. He is a researcher in machine learning known for Markov logic network enabling uncertain inference. == Education == Domingos received an undergraduate degree and Master of Science degree from Instituto Superior Técnico (IST). He moved to the University of California, Irvine, where he received a Master of Science degree followed by his PhD. == Research and career == After spending two years as an assistant professor at IST, he joined the University of Washington as an assistant professor of Computer Science and Engineering in 1999 and became a full professor in 2012. He started a machine learning research group at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co. in 2018, but left in 2019. He co-founded the International Machine Learning Society. As of 2018, he was on the editorial board of Machine Learning journal. === Publications === Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World, New York, Basic Books, 2015, ISBN 978-0-465-06570-7. Pedro Domingos, "Our Digital Doubles: AI will serve our species, not control it", Scientific American, vol. 319, no. 3 (September 2018), pp. 88–93. "AIs are like autistic savants and will remain so for the foreseeable future.... AIs lack common sense and can easily make errors that a human never would... They are also liable to take our instructions too literally, giving us precisely what we asked for instead of what we actually wanted." (p. 93.) Pedro Domingos, 2040: A Silicon Valley Satire, BookBaby, 2024, ISBN 979-8-350-96334-2. === Awards and honors === 2014: ACM SIGKDD Innovation Award. for his foundational research in data stream analysis, cost-sensitive classification, adversarial learning, and Markov logic networks, as well as applications in viral marketing and information integration. 2010: Elected an Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fellow. For significant contributions to the field of machine learning and to the unification of first-order logic and probability. 2003: Sloan Fellowship 1992–1997: Fulbright Scholarship
Argumentation framework
In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Collocation
In corpus linguistics, a collocation is a series of words or terms that co-occur more often than would be expected by chance. In phraseology, a collocation is a type of compositional phraseme, meaning that it can be understood from the words that make it up. This contrasts with an idiom, where the meaning of the whole cannot be inferred from its parts, and may be completely unrelated. There are about seven main types of collocations: adjective + noun, noun + noun (such as collective nouns), noun + verb, verb + noun, adverb + adjective, verbs + prepositional phrase (phrasal verbs), and verb + adverb. Collocation extraction is a computational technique that finds collocations in a document or corpus, using various computational linguistics elements resembling data mining. == Expanded definition == Collocations are partly or fully fixed expressions that become established through repeated context-dependent use. Such terms as crystal clear, middle management, nuclear family, and cosmetic surgery are examples of collocated pairs of words. Collocations can be in a syntactic relation (such as verb–object: make and decision), lexical relation (such as antonymy), or they can be in no linguistically defined relation. Knowledge of collocations is vital for the competent use of a language: a grammatically correct sentence will stand out as awkward if collocational preferences are violated. This makes collocation a common focus for language teaching. Corpus linguists specify a key word in context (KWIC) and identify the words immediately surrounding them, to illustrate the way words are used in practice. The processing of collocations involves a number of parameters, the most important of which is the measure of association, which evaluates whether the co-occurrence is purely by chance or statistically significant. Due to the non-random nature of language, most collocations are classed as significant, and the association scores are simply used to rank the results. Commonly used measures of association include mutual information, t scores, and log-likelihood. Rather than select a single definition, Gledhill proposes that collocation involves at least three different perspectives: co-occurrence, a statistical view, which sees collocation as the recurrent appearance in a text of a node and its collocates; construction, which sees collocation either as a correlation between a lexeme and a lexical-grammatical pattern, or as a relation between a base and its collocative partners; and expression, a pragmatic view of collocation as a conventional unit of expression, regardless of form. These different perspectives contrast with the usual way of presenting collocation in phraseological studies. Traditionally speaking, collocation is explained in terms of all three perspectives at once, in a continuum: == In dictionaries == In 1933, Harold Palmer's Second Interim Report on English Collocations highlighted the importance of collocation as a key to producing natural-sounding language, for anyone learning a foreign language. Thus from the 1940s onwards, information about recurrent word combinations became a standard feature of monolingual learner's dictionaries. As these dictionaries became "less word-centred and more phrase-centred", more attention was paid to collocation. This trend was supported, from the beginning of the 21st century, by the availability of large text corpora and intelligent corpus-querying software, making it possible to provide a more systematic account of collocation in dictionaries. Using these tools, dictionaries such as the Macmillan English Dictionary and the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English included boxes or panels with lists of frequent collocations. There are also a number of specialized dictionaries devoted to describing the frequent collocations in a language. These include (for Spanish) Redes: Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporaneo (2004), (for French) Le Robert: Dictionnaire des combinaisons de mots (2007), and (for English) the LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations (1997) and the Macmillan Collocations Dictionary (2010). == Statistically significant collocation == Student's t-test can be used to determine whether the occurrence of a collocation in a corpus is statistically significant. For a bigram w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle w_{1}w_{2}} , let P ( w 1 ) = # w 1 N {\displaystyle P(w_{1})={\frac {\#w_{1}}{N}}} be the unconditional probability of occurrence of w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} in a corpus with size N {\displaystyle N} , and let P ( w 2 ) = # w 2 N {\displaystyle P(w_{2})={\frac {\#w_{2}}{N}}} be the unconditional probability of occurrence of w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} in the corpus. The t-score for the bigram w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle w_{1}w_{2}} is calculated as: where x ¯ = # w i w j N {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}={\frac {\#w_{i}w_{j}}{N}}} is the sample mean of the occurrence of w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle w_{1}w_{2}} , # w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle \#w_{1}w_{2}} is the number of occurrences of w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle w_{1}w_{2}} , μ = P ( w i ) P ( w j ) {\displaystyle \mu =P(w_{i})P(w_{j})} is the probability of w 1 w 2 {\displaystyle w_{1}w_{2}} under the null-hypothesis that w 1 {\displaystyle w_{1}} and w 2 {\displaystyle w_{2}} appear independently in the text, and s 2 = x ¯ ( 1 − x ¯ ) ≈ x ¯ {\displaystyle s^{2}={\bar {x}}(1-{\bar {x}})\approx {\bar {x}}} is the sample variance. With a large N {\displaystyle N} , the t-test is equivalent to a Z-test.
Finite-state transducer
A finite-state transducer (FST) is a finite-state machine with two memory tapes, following the terminology for Turing machines: an input tape and an output tape. This contrasts with an ordinary finite-state automaton, which has a single tape. An FST is a type of finite-state automaton (FSA) that maps between two sets of symbols. An FST is more general than an FSA. An FSA defines a formal language by defining a set of accepted strings, while an FST defines a relation between sets of strings. An FST will read a set of strings on the input tape and generate a set of relations on the output tape. An FST can be thought of as a translator or relater between strings in a set. In morphological parsing, an example would be inputting a string of letters into the FST, the FST would then output a string of morphemes. == Overview == An automaton can be said to recognize a string if we view the content of its tape as input. In other words, the automaton computes a function that maps strings into the set {0,1}. Alternatively, we can say that an automaton generates strings, which means viewing its tape as an output tape. On this view, the automaton generates a formal language, which is a set of strings. The two views of automata are equivalent: the function that the automaton computes is precisely the indicator function of the set of strings it generates. The class of languages generated by finite automata is known as the class of regular languages. The two tapes of a transducer are typically viewed as an input tape and an output tape. On this view, a transducer is said to transduce (i.e., translate) the contents of its input tape to its output tape, by accepting a string on its input tape and generating another string on its output tape. It may do so nondeterministically and it may produce more than one output for each input string. A transducer may also produce no output for a given input string, in which case it is said to reject the input. In general, a transducer computes a relation between two formal languages. Each string-to-string finite-state transducer relates the input alphabet Σ to the output alphabet Γ. Relations R on Σ×Γ that can be implemented as finite-state transducers are called rational relations. Rational relations that are partial functions, i.e. that relate every input string from Σ to at most one Γ, are called rational functions. Finite-state transducers are often used for phonological and morphological analysis in natural language processing research and applications. Pioneers in this field include Ronald Kaplan, Lauri Karttunen, Martin Kay and Kimmo Koskenniemi. A common way of using transducers is in a so-called "cascade", where transducers for various operations are combined into a single transducer by repeated application of the composition operator (defined below). == Formal construction == Formally, a finite transducer T is a 6-tuple (Q, Σ, Γ, I, F, δ) such that: Q is a finite set, the set of states; Σ is a finite set, called the input alphabet; Γ is a finite set, called the output alphabet; I is a subset of Q, the set of initial states; F is a subset of Q, the set of final states; and δ ⊆ Q × ( Σ ∪ { ϵ } ) × ( Γ ∪ { ϵ } ) × Q {\displaystyle \delta \subseteq Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{\epsilon \})\times (\Gamma \cup \{\epsilon \})\times Q} (where ε is the empty string) is the transition relation. We can view (Q, δ) as a labeled directed graph, known as the transition graph of T: the set of vertices is Q, and ( q , a , b , r ) ∈ δ {\displaystyle (q,a,b,r)\in \delta } means that there is a labeled edge going from vertex q to vertex r. We also say that a is the input label and b the output label of that edge. NOTE: This definition of finite transducer is also called letter transducer (Roche and Schabes 1997); alternative definitions are possible, but can all be converted into transducers following this one. Define the extended transition relation δ ∗ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}} as the smallest set such that: δ ⊆ δ ∗ {\displaystyle \delta \subseteq \delta ^{}} ; ( q , ϵ , ϵ , q ) ∈ δ ∗ {\displaystyle (q,\epsilon ,\epsilon ,q)\in \delta ^{}} for all q ∈ Q {\displaystyle q\in Q} ; and whenever ( q , x , y , r ) ∈ δ ∗ {\displaystyle (q,x,y,r)\in \delta ^{}} and ( r , a , b , s ) ∈ δ {\displaystyle (r,a,b,s)\in \delta } then ( q , x a , y b , s ) ∈ δ ∗ {\displaystyle (q,xa,yb,s)\in \delta ^{}} . The extended transition relation is essentially the reflexive transitive closure of the transition graph that has been augmented to take edge labels into account. The elements of δ ∗ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}} are known as paths. The edge labels of a path are obtained by concatenating the edge labels of its constituent transitions in order. The behavior of the transducer T is the rational relation [T] defined as follows: x [ T ] y {\displaystyle x[T]y} if and only if there exists i ∈ I {\displaystyle i\in I} and f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in F} such that ( i , x , y , f ) ∈ δ ∗ {\displaystyle (i,x,y,f)\in \delta ^{}} . This is to say that T transduces a string x ∈ Σ ∗ {\displaystyle x\in \Sigma ^{}} into a string y ∈ Γ ∗ {\displaystyle y\in \Gamma ^{}} if there exists a path from an initial state to a final state whose input label is x and whose output label is y. === Weighted automata === Finite State Transducers can be weighted, where each transition is labelled with a weight in addition to the input and output labels. A Weighted Finite State Transducer (WFST) over a set K of weights can be defined similarly to an unweighted one as an 8-tuple T=(Q, Σ, Γ, I, F, E, λ, ρ), where: Q, Σ, Γ, I, F are defined as above; E ⊆ Q × ( Σ ∪ { ϵ } ) × ( Γ ∪ { ϵ } ) × Q × K {\displaystyle E\subseteq Q\times (\Sigma \cup \{\epsilon \})\times (\Gamma \cup \{\epsilon \})\times Q\times K} (where ε is the empty string) is the finite set of transitions; λ : I → K {\displaystyle \lambda :I\rightarrow K} maps initial states to weights; ρ : F → K {\displaystyle \rho :F\rightarrow K} maps final states to weights. In order to make certain operations on WFSTs well-defined, it is convenient to require the set of weights to form a semiring. Two typical semirings used in practice are the log semiring and tropical semiring: nondeterministic automata may be regarded as having weights in the Boolean semiring. Two weighted FST can be composed. == Operations on finite-state transducers == The following operations defined on finite automata also apply to finite transducers: Union. Given transducers T and S, there exists a transducer T ∪ S {\displaystyle T\cup S} such that x [ T ∪ S ] y {\displaystyle x[T\cup S]y} if and only if x [ T ] y {\displaystyle x[T]y} or x [ S ] y {\displaystyle x[S]y} . Concatenation. Given transducers T and S, there exists a transducer T ⋅ S {\displaystyle T\cdot S} such that x [ T ⋅ S ] y {\displaystyle x[T\cdot S]y} if and only if there exist x 1 , x 2 , y 1 , y 2 {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},y_{1},y_{2}} with x = x 1 x 2 , y = y 1 y 2 , x 1 [ T ] y 1 {\displaystyle x=x_{1}x_{2},y=y_{1}y_{2},x_{1}[T]y_{1}} and x 2 [ S ] y 2 . {\displaystyle x_{2}[S]y_{2}.} Kleene closure. Given a transducer T, there might exist a transducer T ∗ {\displaystyle T^{}} with the following properties: and x [ T ∗ ] y {\displaystyle x[T^{}]y} does not hold unless mandated by (k1) or (k2). Composition. Given a transducer T on alphabets Σ and Γ and a transducer S on alphabets Γ and Δ, there exists a transducer T ∘ S {\displaystyle T\circ S} on Σ and Δ such that x [ T ∘ S ] z {\displaystyle x[T\circ S]z} if and only if there exists a string y ∈ Γ ∗ {\displaystyle y\in \Gamma ^{}} such that x [ T ] y {\displaystyle x[T]y} and y [ S ] z {\displaystyle y[S]z} . This operation extends to the weighted case. This definition uses the same notation used in mathematics for relation composition. However, the conventional reading for relation composition is the other way around: given two relations T and S, ( x , z ) ∈ T ∘ S {\displaystyle (x,z)\in T\circ S} when there exist some y such that ( x , y ) ∈ S {\displaystyle (x,y)\in S} and ( y , z ) ∈ T . {\displaystyle (y,z)\in T.} Projection to an automaton. There are two projection functions: π 1 {\displaystyle \pi _{1}} preserves the input tape, and π 2 {\displaystyle \pi _{2}} preserves the output tape. The first projection, π 1 {\displaystyle \pi _{1}} is defined as follows: Given a transducer T, there exists a finite automaton π 1 T {\displaystyle \pi _{1}T} such that π 1 T {\displaystyle \pi _{1}T} accepts x if and only if there exists a string y for which x [ T ] y . {\displaystyle x[T]y.} :The second projection, π 2 {\displaystyle \pi _{2}} is defined similarly. Determinization. Given a transducer T, we want to build an equivalent transducer that has a unique initial state and such that no two transitions leaving any state share the same input label. The powerset construction can be extended to transducers, or even weighted transducers, but sometimes fails to halt; indeed, some non-deterministic transducers do not admit equivalent
Markov chain geostatistics
Markov chain geostatistics uses Markov chain spatial models, simulation algorithms and associated spatial correlation measures (e.g., transiogram) based on the Markov chain random field theory, which extends a single Markov chain into a multi-dimensional random field for geostatistical modeling. A Markov chain random field is still a single spatial Markov chain. The spatial Markov chain moves or jumps in a space and decides its state at any unobserved location through interactions with its nearest known neighbors in different directions. The data interaction process can be well explained as a local sequential Bayesian updating process within a neighborhood. Because single-step transition probability matrices are difficult to estimate from sparse sample data and are impractical in representing the complex spatial heterogeneity of states, the transiogram, which is defined as a transition probability function over the distance lag, is proposed as the accompanying spatial measure of Markov chain random fields.
Situated approach (artificial intelligence)
In artificial intelligence research, the situated approach builds agents that are designed to behave effectively successfully in their environment. This requires designing AI "from the bottom-up" by focussing on the basic perceptual and motor skills required to survive. The situated approach gives a much lower priority to abstract reasoning or problem-solving skills. The approach was originally proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches (that is, approaches popular before 1985 or so). After several decades, classical AI technologies started to face intractable issues (e.g. combinatorial explosion) when confronted with real-world modeling problems. All approaches to address these issues focus on modeling intelligences situated in an environment. They have become known as the situated approach to AI. == Emergence of a concept == === From traditional AI to Nouvelle AI === During the late 1980s, the approach now known as Nouvelle AI (Nouvelle means new in French) was pioneered at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory by Rodney Brooks. As opposed to classical or traditional artificial intelligence, Nouvelle AI purposely avoided the traditional goal of modeling human-level performance, but rather tries to create systems with intelligence at the level of insects, closer to real-world robots. But eventually, at least at MIT new AI did lead to an attempt for humanoid AI in the Cog Project. === From Nouvelle AI to behavior-based and situated AI === The conceptual shift introduced by nouvelle AI flourished in the robotics area, given way to behavior-based robotics (BBR), a methodology for developing AI based on a modular decomposition of intelligence. It was made famous by Rodney Brooks: his subsumption architecture was one of the earliest attempts to describe a mechanism for developing BBAI. It is extremely popular in robotics and to a lesser extent to implement intelligent virtual agents because it allows the successful creation of real-time dynamic systems that can run in complex environments. For example, it underlies the intelligence of the Sony Aibo and many RoboCup robot teams. Realizing that in fact all these approaches were aiming at building not an abstract intelligence, but rather an intelligence situated in a given environment, they have come to be known as the situated approach. In fact, this approach stems out from early insights of Alan Turing, describing the need to build machines equipped with sense organs to learn directly from the real-world instead of focusing on abstract activities, such as playing chess. == Definitions == Classically, a software entity is defined as a simulated element, able to act on itself and on its environment, and which has an internal representation of itself and of the outside world. An entity can communicate with other entities, and its behavior is the consequence of its perceptions, its representations, and its interactions with the other entities. === AI loop === Simulating entities in a virtual environment requires simulating the entire process that goes from a perception of the environment, or more generally from a stimulus, to an action on the environment. This process is called the AI loop and technology used to simulate it can be subdivided in two categories. Sensorimotor or low-level AI deals with either the perception problem (what is perceived?) or the animation problem (how are actions executed?). Decisional or high-level AI deals with the action selection problem (what is the most appropriate action in response to a given perception, i.e. what is the most appropriate behavior?). === Traditional or symbolic AI === There are two main approaches in decisional AI. The vast majority of the technologies available on the market, such as planning algorithms, finite-state machines (FSA), or expert systems, are based on the traditional or symbolic AI approach. Its main characteristics are: It is top-down: it subdivides, in a recursive manner, a given problem into a series of sub-problems that are supposedly easier to solve. It is knowledge-based: it relies on a symbolic description of the world, such as a set of rules. However, the limits of traditional AI, which goal is to build systems that mimic human intelligence, are well-known: inevitably, a combinatorial explosion of the number of rules occurs due to the complexity of the environment. In fact, it is impossible to predict all the situations that will be encountered by an autonomous entity. === Situated or behavioral AI === In order to address these issues, another approach to decisional AI, also known as situated or behavioral AI, has been proposed. It does not attempt to model systems that produce deductive reasoning processes, but rather systems that behave realistically in their environment. The main characteristics of this approach are the following: It is bottom-up: it relies on elementary behaviors, which can be combined to implement more complex behaviors. It is behavior-based: it does not rely on a symbolic description of the environment, but rather on a model of the interactions of the entities with their environment. The goal of situated AI is to model entities that are autonomous in their environment. This is achieved thanks to both the intrinsic robustness of the control architecture, and its adaptation capabilities to unforeseen situations. === Situated agents === In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the Internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behavior derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment. == Implementation principles == === Modular decomposition === The most important attribute of a system driven by situated AI is that the intelligence is controlled by a set of independent semi-autonomous modules. In the original systems, each module was actually a separate device or was at least conceived of as running on its own processing thread. Generally, though, the modules are just abstractions. In this respect, situated AI may be seen as a software engineering approach to AI, perhaps akin to object oriented design. Situated AI is often associated with reactive planning, but the two are not synonymous. Brooks advocated an extreme version of cognitive minimalism which required initially that the behavior modules were finite-state machines and thus contained no conventional memory or learning. This is associated with reactive AI because reactive AI requires reacting to the current state of the world, not to an agent's memory or preconception of that world. However, learning is obviously key to realistic strong AI, so this constraint has been relaxed, though not entirely abandoned. === Action selection mechanism === The situated AI community has presented several solutions to modeling decision-making processes, also known as action selection mechanisms. The first attempt to solve this problem goes back to subsumption architectures, which were in fact more an implementation technique than an algorithm. However, this attempt paved the way to several others, in particular the free-flow hierarchies and activation networks. A comparison of the structure and performances of these two mechanisms demonstrated the advantage of using free-flow hierarchies in solving the action selection problem. However, motor schemas and process description languages are two other approaches that have been used with success for autonomous robots. == Notes and references == Arsenio, Artur M. (2004) Towards an embodied and situated AI, In: Proceedings of the International FLAIRS conference, 2004. (online) The Artificial Life Route To Artificial Intelligence: Building Embodied, Situated Agents, Luc Steels and Rodney Brooks Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing, 1995. (ISBN 978-0805815184) Rodney A. Brooks Cambrian Intelligence (MIT Press, 1999) ISBN 0-262-52263-2; collection of early papers including "Intelligence without representation" and "Intelligence without reason", from 1986 & 1991 respectively. Ronald C. Arkin Behavior-Based Robotics (MIT Press, 1998) ISBN 0-262-01165-4 Hendriks-Jansen, Horst (1996) Catching Ourselves in the Act: Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution, and Human Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Best AI Blog Writers in 2026
Trying to pick the best AI blog writer? An AI blog writer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI blog writer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.